Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 29 (2026)

Dissemination or possession of obscene matter; punishment; defense

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 29. Whoever disseminates any matter which is obscene, knowing it to be obscene, or whoever has in his possession any matter which is obscene, knowing it to be obscene, with the intent to disseminate the same, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand dollars for the first offense, not less than five thousand nor more than twenty thousand dollars for the second offense, or not less than ten thousand nor more than thirty thousand dollars for the third and subsequent offenses, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A prosecution commenced under this section shall not be continued without a finding nor placed on file. It shall be a defense under this section if the evidence proves that the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or library, or was acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 45 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 357 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. 707 Main Corp., 357 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 10× “They involved the same subject matter, the motion picture film entitled "Deep Throat.”

Commonwealth v. United Books, Inc., 453 N.E.2d 406 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 8× “After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of disseminating obscene matter in violation of G.L.c. 272, § 29, and fined $5,000. [1] The conviction was *890 based on a coin-operated film, "Seak's Fullfillment," which was available for viewing at the defendant's store.”

Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Inc., 361 N.E.2d 1239 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 4× “The Commonwealth prosecuted the defendant on two complaints charging possession of obscene magazines with intent to distribute them in violation of G.L.c. 272, § 29. The defendant filed motions to dismiss the complaints, alleging that the matter possessed constituted books, not…”

Commonwealth v. Thureson, 357 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 8× “We conclude that the defendant's motion for a directed verdict should have been *388 allowed because the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly obscene matter.”

New Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 420 N.E.2d 8 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 8× “The suspension of the plaintiff’s license was based on a determination by the commission that the plaintiff had violated a regulation of the commission by permitting ob *787 scene dancing on the premises in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 29. 2 The regulation, 204 Code Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Ferro, 361 N.E.2d 1234 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 6× “The judge fined him and sentenced him to two and one-half years in a house of correction.”

Commonwealth v. Rosenberg, 398 N.E.2d 451 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 5× “The central issue on appeal is whether the part owner and manager of Sam’s Spa, a neighborhood variety store in Everett, was properly convicted of knowingly disseminating obscene matter in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 29. 1 After a trial by jury, Nathan Rosenberg was found…”

Commonwealth v. Dodgson, 952 N.E.2d 961 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “272, §§28 and 31; one count of dissemination of obscene matter within the meaning of G. L. c. 272, §§ 29 and 31; and two counts of enticement of a child under the age of sixteen within the meaning of G.”

Commonwealth v. Mascolo, 375 N.E.2d 17 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). · cites it 4× “Mascolo (Mascolo) and the United American Theatre Corporation (corporation), from convictions under G. L. c. 272, § 29, for possession of an obscene motion picture film with intent to disseminate.”

Commonwealth v. Guzman, 14 N.E.3d 946 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 3× “On August 15, 2011, a Suffolk County grand jury issued two indictments charging dissemination or possession *494 of obscene matter, G. L. c. 272, § 29; two indictments charging dissemination of visual material depicting a child in a state of nudity or sexual conduct, G.”

People v. Woodward, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” ( Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 29 .) Some states defined certain categories of organizations exempt from prosecution or to which an affirmative defense applied; “ .”

Commonwealth v. Trainor, 374 N.E.2d 1216 (Mass. 1978). · cites it 2× “, supra at 382, concerning the nature of the proof of a defendant's knowledge necessary for a conviction under G.L.c. 272, § 29. Section 29 requires proof that the defendant possessed matter which was obscene, "knowing it to be obscene.”

Show all 45 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.